Well, given that their "argument" to maintain the ban on CCW consisted of:

1) It might make the public safer (but provided no statistical proof)
2) Because it's not nonsensical
3) Because we can

is it surprising?

As for #1, let's not forget Judge Easterbrook's words of support for the Highland Park AWB - "If a ban on semi-automatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit," (emphasis added)

“I have fought the good fight to the end; I have run the race to the finish: I have kept the faith." Timothy Chapter 4 verse 7

"Legitimate self-defense has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal misuse of guns." Gerald Vernon, veteran firearms instructor

The state may be allowed to enact a particular regulatory scheme, but if they are then admittedly unable to fulfill that scheme, that doesn't allow them to summarily deny the exercise of a fundamental civil right.

Arguments in favor of a particular scheme are invalid if the scheme is impossible to employ. It defies reasonableness when they enact something that they know is impossible. The whole concept of predicating civil rights on something some other state does defies the separation of the states in any event.

Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

How in the H ell is it that literally every pro-firearm filing I've ever seen in this state so far outstrips the anti-firearm filings in every logical and legal argument, yet there continues to be anything other than complete vindication for the pro-firearm viewpoint, at least from a legal standpoint?

The arguments from the anti-firearm sides are universally unsupported and well-nigh inept to the point of legal malpractice, in my experience from both linguistic and legal editing and research.

I am dumbfounded that any judge with even a minimum of jurisprudence could find against briefs such as this.

"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me

“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein

“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me

If Culp I's timeline were an indicator we should be getting an oral argument date any day now, probably set for September/October. And 2 more Trump judges(not including Brennan, already confirmed) are expected to be confirmed this week, which will make 4 on the 7th Circuit.

I still expect Manion and Williams to be on the panel along with someone to take Posner's place.

And 2 more Trump judges(not including Brennan, already confirmed) are expected to be confirmed this week, which will make 4 on the 7th Circuit.

The Senate just confirmed the nominations of Amy St. Eve and Michael Scudder.

St. Eve issued this decision upholding the Federal Gun-Free School Zone sections 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) and 18 U.S.C § 922(a)(4). Scudder hasn't been a judge but according to this article, both "Durbin and Duckworth have... returned their blue slips, supporting the nominations of Scudder and St. Eve."

Given that I am a sitting District Court judge and a nominee for the Seventh Circuit, it would be inappropriate for me to give my personal opinion on the Heller opinion. It is binding precedent and I will apply it.

Given that I am a sitting District Court judge and a nominee for the Seventh Circuit, it would be inappropriate for me to give my personal opinion on the Heller opinion. It is binding precedent and I will apply it.

Amy St Eve

And she certainly did apply her interpretation of the Heller decision in her decision I posted a link to. Unfortunately, her understanding of the Second Amendment conflicts with the Heller and McDonald decisions. One would think with all of the lawyers either holding office in the Senate or their staff attorneys would have found that decision of hers given it took me all of about 2 seconds to find it.

"IT IS ORDERED that this case be orally argued on Thursday, September 20, 2018, in the Main Courtroom, Room 2721 of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois, at 9:30 a.m."

This is one day before the start of the Gun Rights Policy Conference, being held in Chicago this year.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

"IT IS ORDERED that this case be orally argued on Thursday, September 20, 2018, in the Main Courtroom, Room 2721 of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois, at 9:30 a.m."

This is one day before the start of the Gun Rights Policy Conference, being held in Chicago this year.

Nice. How much seating do they have at the appeals court?

Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

Hopefully Judge Sykes will be on the panel. I so enjoyed listening to her demolish Chicago's attorney during oral argument in some previous case (one of the Ezell cases I think), if they still publish audio.

Edited by Gamma, 11 July 2018 - 05:49 PM.

Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.